CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 19 octobre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 26138/95                       by I.L.                       against the Slovak Republic         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:              MM.    H. DANELIUS, President                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 13 June 1994 by I.L. against the Slovak Republic and registered on 6 January 1995 under file No. 26138/95;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Slovak citizen born in 1953.   He is a software programmer and resides in Dubnica nad Váhom.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The particular circumstances of the case         Since 1989 the applicant has been living in a block of flats owned by a co-operative.   In June 1992 he requested, pursuant to a newly adopted legislation, that the flat should be sold to him.         Since then his neighbours and other individuals have disturbed him by noisy behaviour, mockery, offences and threats.   On several occasions the door and windows of his flat and his letter box were damaged.   The applicant considers that the purpose of these interferences is to dissuade him from buying the flat.         The applicant unsuccessfully sought redress with the co-operative and the Dubnica nad Váhom Town Office (Mestsky úrad).   He was informed, inter alia, that he could claim the alleged violation of the right to protection of his dignity and honour before a court.         On several occasions, the applicant asked the police to investigate the disturbances and to prosecute the responsible persons. The police informed the applicant that the alleged facts had not been established.   They found no evidence of an offence or a minor offence and terminated the investigation.   On 15 April 1994 the police gave notice of these facts to the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office (Obvodny úrad).         On 11 May 1994 the latter found that the applicant had committed a minor offence pursuant to Section 49 (1) (d) of Act No. 372/1990 (see Relevant domestic law below) in that he had accused without justification family B. of causing nuisance.   The applicant was fined 300 Slovak crowns and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings of 150 Slovak crowns.   On 28 July 1994 the Povazská Bystrica District Office (Okresny úrad) upheld this decision.         On 16 August 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd).   In his submissions of 5 October 1994 he claimed, inter alia, that the administrative organs' decisions to fine him should be quashed.   He also asked for a review of the police's decisions to terminate investigation of the alleged offences against him.         In particular, he alleged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in that the manner in which the proceedings before these authorities had been held encouraged his neighbours to continue disturbing and offending him.   He further alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that there had been no fair and public hearing within a reasonable time in his case, and that the administrative authorities dealing with the case lacked independence. The applicant also invoked Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.         On 24 November 1994 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. It recalled that pursuant to Section 83 of Act No. 372/1990 the lawfulness of administrative organs' decisions on minor offences is reviewable by courts only in cases where, inter alia, a fine exceeding 2,000 Slovak crowns has been imposed.   The Constitutional Court declared itself fully bound by this provision.   It further held that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of police authorities.         Relevant domestic law         The applicant was fined for a minor offence against civic propriety pursuant to Act No. 372/1990 on Minor Offences (Zákon o priestupkoch) of 28 August 1990 as amended ("the Act").         Pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the Act a minor offence is a negligent or intentional action which is directed against or causes danger to the public interest and is expressly classified as a minor offence in Act No. 372/1990 or another act, unless such action represents a separate administrative offence punishable under other legal rules, or a criminal offence.         The Act refers to repressive measures for minor offences as "sanctions" (sankcie).   Section 11 (1) of the Act provides for the following sanctions for a minor offence: a) reprimand, b) fine, c) prohibition to exercise a certain activity, d) confiscation of an object.         According to Section 49 (1) (d) of the Act a person who deliberately violates civic propriety by, inter alia, unjustifiedly accusing other person of a minor offence commits a minor offence against civic propriety.   By Section 49 (2) such an offence is punishable with a maximum fine of 3,000 Slovak crowns.         Pursuant to Section 83 (1) of the Act certain decisions on minor offences (imposition of a fine exceeding 2,000 Slovak crowns, prohibition on the exercise of a certain activity for a period exceeding six months or the confiscation of an object of a value exceeding 2,000 Slovak crowns) are reviewable by the courts.   In such a case the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on administrative judicature are applied.         Pursuant to Section 135 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts are bound, inter alia, by the decisions of competent authorities that a criminal offence, a minor offence or another administrative offence punishable under special rules has been committed.         Article 46 para. 2 of the Constitution guarantees to everybody who claims to have been denied his or her rights through a decision made by a public authority the right to turn to a court of law and have the legality of the decision reviewed, unless otherwise provided by law.   The review of decisions in matters of fundamental rights and freedoms shall not be excluded from the jurisdiction of courts of law.         Pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decides on complaints about final decisions made by, inter alia, local government authorities and local self-governing bodies in cases concerning violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, unless the protection of such rights falls under the jurisdiction of another court.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of ill-treatment by various individuals and official authorities, of the refusal to investigate his complaints in this respect and to prosecute the responsible persons, and of the proceedings leading to the imposition of a fine on him.   He alleges a violation of Articles 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant alleges a violation of his rights under the Convention in the proceedings leading to the imposition of a fine on him.   He refers to Articles 6, 13 and 14 (Art. 6, 13, 14) of the Convention in this respect.   The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   2.     The applicant further complains that the Slovak authorities which dealt with his case violated his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in that they imposed a fine on him for having made statements against his neighbour which he was not able to prove.         Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, as far as relevant, provides:         "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.   This       right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and       impart information and ideas without interference by public       authority ...         2.    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it       duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,       conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law       and are necessary in a democratic society, ... for the protection       of the reputation or rights of others ..."         The Commission does not consider it necessary to examine whether the applicant has complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention since this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.         In the Commission's view the fine for an offence against civic propriety imposed on the applicant constituted an interference with the exercise of the latter's freedom of expression.   Such an interference is in breach of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, unless it is justified under paragraph 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), i.e. it must be "prescribed by law", have an aim that is legitimate under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) and be "necessary in a democratic society".         The legal basis of the interference under consideration was Act No. 372/1990.   The Commission finds that the provisions of this Act were accessible, and the fine complained of was also foreseeable under the relevant legislation (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, pp. 21-23, paras. 45-48).   The sanction issued against the applicant can, therefore, be considered as "prescribed by law" for the purposes of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         Moreover, the decision complained of aimed to protect "the reputation or rights of others", namely the members of family B. whom the applicant had accused, without being able to justify it, of having committed a minor offence against him.   This is a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         It remains to be determined whether the interference complained of was "necessary in a democratic society" and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (cf., e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Observer and Guardian judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216 pp. 29-30, para. 59).         In its decision of 11 May 1994 the Dubnica nad Váhom Local Office found that the applicant had unjustifiedly accused family B. of causing him nuisance with the aim of making him leave his flat.   Thereby the factual ingredients of a minor offence against civic propriety pursuant to Section 49 (1) (d) of the Act were given.         The Commission considers that the sanction imposed on the applicant was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and that the reasons adduced were relevant and sufficient.         In these circumstances, the interference complained of can be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.     a) To the extent that the applicant alleges a violation of his rights under the Convention by his neighbours and other individuals, the Commission recalls that it cannot entertain complaints against an individual (cf. No. 11590/85, Dec. 18.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 258).   This part of the application is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         b) The applicant also complains that the competent Slovak authorities failed to secure the respect for his private life guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   The Commission notes, however, that the applicant failed to lodge a claim for protection of his dignity and honour with the competent civil court pursuant to Section 11 et seq. of the Civil Code.         For these reasons, the applicant failed to comply with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         c) The applicant further alleges a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in that the Slovak authorities failed to prosecute persons who had allegedly committed offences against him.         The Commission recalls, however, that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not include a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third persons (cf. No. 9777/82, Dec. 14.7.83, D.R. 34, p. 158).         It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         d) The applicant complains that by failing to prosecute persons who have ill-treated him the Slovak authorities have also violated his rights under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.         Pursuant to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.         The Commission notes, that the applicant has failed to substantiate the facts complained of before the competent Slovak authorities.   Moreover, before the Commission the applicant has adduced no evidence of any severe or long-lasting effects as a result of the treatment complained of.   In the Commission's view, the examination of this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning or Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         e) Finally, the applicant complains of violations of his rights under Articles 13 (Art. 13+1+3+6+8+10) and 14 (Art. 14+1+3+6+8+10) of the Convention in combination with Articles 1, 3, 6 (in respect of the refusal to prosecute third persons), 8 and 10 of the Convention.   The Commission has examined these complaints, but finds that, insofar as they are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaints       concerning the proceedings leading to the imposition of a fine;         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber        (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                         (H. DANELIUS)